Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

A letter from America

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Thaddeus J. Wilson on June 7, 2010

Fear The Moustache!

I should start off with a disclaimer, I suppose: I am a fan of John Stossel. I stumbled across his YouTube videos by accident, he does a regular show for Fox in the US debunking “conventional wisdom” from a libertarian perspective. They are quite compelling.

Recently, there was a bit of a furore in the USA when a Republican candidate for the US Senate, Rand Paul (son of the famous Ron Paul) said that he despised racism, but that he felt that the state had no business telling people that there were legal sanctions on racism. He said that the Community Relations Act of 1964 went too far in banning racism in private businesses, effectively ending private freedom of association.

John Stossel went on TV to defend freedom of association to the media. You can watch the clip here. He started off by saying that he found racism repugnant and that he would never knowingly support a racist business and that he would campaign against a racist business, but that it was no business of the government to tell people who they could choose to serve or not serve. If you watch the clip, you will see how the “progressive” presenter fails to see how this is entirely consistent and moreover fails to see how anyone could not accept that it’s the government’s business to tell anyone what they can and can’t do.

There is an important historical aside here: private business was way ahead of the government in wanting to do away with instutionalised racism. The law (for it was such) issued by the state that said that people of colour had to sit at the back of the bus was a huge problem for the bus company: most whites didn’t use the bus, whereas most blacks did. So they were forced to travel with half-empty buses, apart from any moral qualms they might have had. They didn’t want the bus laws, even if they were full-on racists, because it hurt their business. And so on.

Anyway, it goes without saying that the USA was up in arms that anyone might defend anything to do with racism. Mr Stossel has written a letter defending his words here. Please do go read it and tell me if you agree with him or not.

It caused me to reflect upon the recent humbug we had here in the UK about gays in bed and breakfasts. For some reason, it is perfectly acceptable to have a bed and breakfast that only allows homosexuals to stay there, while simultaneously denying people the right to bar gays from their establishments. So you are allowed to discriminate against straight people because of the “progressive consensus”. You are legally allowed to discriminate against white people or males to “balance inequality”, but heaven forfend that you discriminate against ethnic minorities or women.

To my mind, these positions are inconsistent and create a far greater sense of inequality and divisiveness. Can you imagine how someone employed because of “inclusion” feels? Effectively the employer is saying “we would have employed someone else who could do the job better, but you ticked some boxes on a government directive or target.” Even if that person was the absolute best candidate, they will never know.

Isn’t it time we stopped making an issue of race and gender? Institutionalised discrimination is a terrible thing, and it doesn’t matter who is being discriminated in an institutional manner.

But individual people are different. We naturally gravitate towards people with similar interests and attitudes. We are not all going to like the same people or even the same mix of people. Imagine if the government said that you had to choose your friends according to the make up of your local community, whatever that might be. 50% of your friends would have to be of the opposite gender. 4% of them would have to be Muslim (and no more, which might be a bit of an issue for actual Muslims!) 2% would have to be black (and no more, which might be an issue for actual black people) 10% would have to be gay (and no more, which might be an issue for actual gay people) and so on and so forth.

Yet governments and “progressives” demand that employers should represent the mix of people in the communities they work in. Somehow this idea appears logical, but it denies the reality that not all people of all races are interested in the same thing. It’s very unlikely for a representative spread of people to occur in any situation naturally.

So why force it?

{17 comments }

EleanorJune 8, 2010 at 10:03

There was a time when I didn’t know what Racism was, and not because there were no blacks around.Sorry, is the word Black acceptable at the moment? I have rather lost track.

Anyway, my point is that I certainly know what Racism is now, and often think that I am obliged to feel it, and to beat myself up about it.

Damn the consequencesJune 8, 2010 at 05:32

John Stossel lives in a country where use of the word niggardly in its correct context is considered wrong by the overly sensitive . That’s not a knock on the US, most other western nations are too ready to be subservient to ill -informed minorities.

It has come to the point where sensible conversation can no longer be undertaken with most recent university graduates or liberals.

Of course John Stossel is correct, but it’s sad to see that his comments which are constitutionally GUARANTEED in the USA are challenged by the hard of thinking.

Fabian the FabulousJune 7, 2010 at 20:57

It’s high time legislation was introduced compelling pubs to take positive action redress the lack of muslim customers.It’s not good enough for landlords to claim that people of all faiths are welcome at their pubs – the scarcity of muslims proves that this welcome is an illusion.And how many pubs have a “ladies-only” bar? Not many, yet how else are muslim ladies expected to enjoy the traditional English hospitality that is so unfairly denied them?Clearly legislation is the only fair and progressive way forward here.

gendeauJune 7, 2010 at 21:07

Relax! I have Great News for you;

Action is on the way, just this morning I heard (on radio4 toady show) that the survey saying that less than 20% of the population of the UK thinking that “Islam was a good thing for society” was being countered by a poster campaign.

These posters would highlight the prophet’s enlightened women’s rights outlook (amongst other such righteous subjects)

So, that’s nice then.

Who said socialism and it’s associated fuck-wittery was dead?

Time to flag up another quango for termination, I think.

When can we start actually addressing the problems, rather than papering over the chasms?

Let’s try having adults in charge, so we can address the problems…Maggie (love her, or loathe her) was at least a grown-up

Mick TuratianJune 7, 2010 at 18:38

gendeauJune 7, 2010 at 19:05

Well, as long as you’re part of a hard-working-family…What do you mean, you don’t have kids?

I agree with him. Completely. I find it so depressing that what he is saying is regarded as controversial. We have become a deeply irrational society.

KingbingoJune 7, 2010 at 13:39

A great example is the breakdown of class discrimination in this country driven entirely by the free market. In the 70

JohnRSJune 7, 2010 at 10:58

Very well put (and John Stossel). But logic has never been a strong point for the lefties, so I doubt you’d ever get one of them to admit they were talking bunkum. Which means the rest of us have to live with the consequences.

woodsy42June 7, 2010 at 10:06

Well said. But surely the law has very little to do with preventing real discrimination and much of it doesn’t even have that intent. Like so many modern laws and regulations it’s intent has to do with the imposition of a level of bullying and deliberately high profile imposed irritation and annoyance backed by the law, partly out of spite to demonstrate the power of the ‘we know better’ lobby and also to keep people in line. It’s no better than the old fashioned schoolyard bully who won’t let his victim up off the floor until the victim publically admits the bully is stronger or richer or whatever.There are plenty of examples: Low power light bulbs that have nothing to do with climate but act every day as an irritant and reminder or our subservience to the global warming cult. Anti smoking rules that have nothing to do with protecting non-smokers. Hunting laws that don’t even pretend to protect foxes but were openly designed to punish the ‘rich’.I’m sure the anti discrimination laws would have specified an ethic mix to christmas card lists and private kid’s parties if they thought they could get away with it.

SadButMadLadJune 7, 2010 at 20:43

“Low power light bulbs that have nothing to do with climate but act every day as an irritant and reminder or our subservience to the global warming cult. ”

It should be a choice. Save money or have a brighter light. I prefer to save money myself.

“Anti smoking rules that have nothing to do with protecting non-smokers.”

Its gone a bit far when someone isn’t allowed to smoke in their own van because its their work vehicle.

“Hunting laws that don

A Brave New WorldJune 7, 2010 at 09:40

It’s difficult to have a rational discussion on the subject because of the kneejerk vitriolic reactions of the so called “liberals”, as we can see in the subject case.

John Stossel is right, we all discriminate, and it’s not the governments role to tell businesses who to deal with. I want my bank to discriminate very carefully when lending out my money. Have a look at Iain Dale’s post on the cause of the credit crunch (URL below). This is what happens when govenments override sensible business practices for reasons of political correctness.

Indeed; Why force it? Racism exists. It is natural to, and practised by, all racial groups, not only white Europeans. It is a fact of life on all continents, and in all countries. Where a different group or tribe does not exist in a locality, it seems to be necessary to invent one; religion and football rivalries are just two examples.In our attempts to eliminate this basic aspect of our natures, some societies, almost exclusively white, have created laws to punish themselves for exhibiting any form of this natural behaviour. The article cites employment quotas, rightly exposing some of the illogical results of these laws. “Positive discrimination” is a popular phrase with adherents of these policies. What a ridiculous notion. If discrimination indeed means something bad (it doesn’t) then why does calling it positive make it good? The notion is as silly as “positive paedophilia” or “positive rape” would be. What they’re really saying is that you, or you, can’t have the job, or the promotion, because you’re white, or worse, white and male.

Marxists would profess that the rational is all that counts. And the numbers are the indisputable base.In these cases the demographics are the metrics that count. So therefore we are not ‘equal’ or ‘fair’ until everything is provably and accountably so via conforming to these figures.

The worst of it is, the more they believe it the smarter they think they are being and the more stupid everyone else is.